The stories that FOI makes possible

Here are some recent stories from the Herald that were only possible because of FOI laws...

Dear Diary, as usual I just met friends, colleagues and constituents, love M.
May 6, 2006
As leaders, Morris Iemma seems touched with a knockabout quality that suggests he is not wrestling tirelessly with huge issues facing the state. Now his department has confirmed that is the case. Read more.

Much ado about deadly dull documents
June 6, 2006
For $20 Sydney Water will sell anyone a drainage diagram, but the NSW Government has spent thousands of dollars fighting to keep secret a letter to Sydney Water that simply requests a copy of one of its drain maps.
And that is not the only harmless document the Attorney-General's Department is trying to keep confidential. Read more.

No, you can't read this - you wouldn't understand it
May 17, 2006
When five High Court judges file into Court 2 in Canberra tomorrow, they will hear a case that will determine whether Australia's freedom-of-information law will at last begin to bloom or will continue to wither. Read more.

Harbour development to increase city's traffic woes
May 16, 2006
Traffic congestion in the city centre looks certain to worsen, with secret forecasts revealing up to 14,500 cars a day will use the city's western streets as a result of the East Darling Harbour development. The State Government's own planning documents warn the increased traffic volumes may detract from the area's amenity - a view shared by locals and the City of Sydney Council.
The documents, obtained by the Herald through freedom-of-information laws, also say the new office and residential towers may impact on views to and from Sydney Harbour. Read more.

Judges open access to sensitive documents
April 29, 2006
In A landmark decision, the state's highest court has thrown out arguments used for two decades by federal and state government agencies to keep secret thousands of their documents.
The unanimous judgement of the Court of Appeal has imposed tough new tests for governments that want to refuse to release documents by claiming they are "internal working documents" in which there is no legitimate public interest. Read more.

High cost of freedom
March 18, 2006
When the Federal Government unveiled its welfare-to-work policy last year it sparked the sort of debate you'd expect from the biggest shake-up of the welfare system in half a century.
With about 1.5 million unemployed, sole parents and disabled people directly affected by the changes, it might seem beyond argument there is considerable public interest in knowing what effect the Government has calculated the policy will have.
Wrong, according to the Government's Department of Employment and Workplace Relations, which crafted the new policy and has now ruled that disclosure of documents explaining its effect "would not, on balance, be in the public interest". Read more.

Teachers abandon battling schools
February 20, 2006
Up to a third of teachers in the state's most-difficult-to-staff schools left their posts before completing the last school year, severely disrupting their students' education.
Hundreds of public school teachers in poorer areas are deserting their jobs mid-year, unlike their counterparts in affluent communities, according to NSW Department of Education figures the Herald has obtained under freedom of information laws. Read more.

Matthew Moore is the Herald's FOI editor.

Contact him at foi@smh.com.au if you know of a document he should be chasing or if you've been frustrated getting documents under FOI laws.

Since 2002 we have been trying to obtain these documents and other documents that relate to serious allegations of systemic victimisation and misconduct. The system will not investigate the complaints unless we can get the documents that they wont produce and/or have destroyed. It appears that the more incompetant that they are and the more paper work that is generated or destroyed etc., and the longer they can drag it out for the more strength it gives their case when they want to use the "unreasonable diversion of resources" line and the easier it is for them to cover up. It also appears that they can destroy documents without having to answer to anyone.

AT the moment the Department in question is trying to cover up the complaints and allegations again and we have had to write to the Registrar, ADT asking for the Registrar to list the matter and hear the matter under Section 58 or 131 (contempt). In a letter from the Department in question dated 30 May 2006, Audit Directorate Unit it states:

"I refer to your complaint dated 2 December 2005, concerning the Selective Schools Unit and my response of 14 December 2005.
By facsimile dated 19 December 2005, your solicitors advised that documents sought in proceedings before the Administrative Decisions Tribunal (ADT) may provide evidence to support your claims of serious misconduct by departmental staff. I note that the ADT handed down its decision on 13 April 2006.
Would you please advise me if you wish to proceed with your complaint and if so, provide documentary evidence to support your allegations by 30 June 2006. Should you be unable to provide such documents by that date I will deem the complaint closed".

This is just so typical. Judgment was handed down on 13 April 2006 and as at 10 June 2006 we have not as yet received the documents from the Department and they say that if we cant provide the documents by 30 June the matter of our serious complaints of misconduct will be closed.

Given the history of this matter you can pretty much bet that the Department will not produce the documents within that time, and then I will get a letter that is backdated and will produce "a document". That document will not be the original one that was ordered to be provided and, when I contact the system in order to have the issues addressed they will just say that they sent the documents as ordered and that I didn?t' present the documents by 30 June 2006 and so the matter has been deemed closed. They will blame me. Further correspondence will be filed without acknowledgment. It?s a process.

From what I hear a Section 58/131 has never been lodged before - so we will see what happens and how the ADT deals with our request. There is a history of non-compliance in this matter!

We will see what happens.

Posted by: Jolanda Challita on June 10, 2006 11:09 AM

i despair of the human race, and ozzies in particular. are you never going to twig, that democracy is rule by the people, and we have something radically different?

Posted by: t m ming on June 12, 2006 9:02 AM

When are you people going to learn? FOI is not there to protect the public from government misconduct, it's not even there to ensure that the public knows what our elected officials are doing. FOI exists so as to protect the government from nosy busybodies that have the gall to think that they actually have a say in how things are run. What do you think this is? A democracy?

Posted by: Anti_Citizen One on June 14, 2006 4:41 PM

Anti_Citizen you are so right. FOI is an avenue for the organisation and preparation of documents so as to publicly present the picture that the Government wants to present in order to support whatever tale or story that they want to spin. FOI works to cover up actions or inaction on paper and at the same time discredit complainants.

If a system can withhold documents, destroy documents and not produce originals because they say that they have been either lost or destroyed and not have to answer to anyone, then what does that say about FOI? It?s nothing but another level of cover up.

The system needs to provide an avenue so that people who have serious complaints and allegations in relation to alleged misconduct and cover ups can have the matters properly and fairly investigated and looked into. Otherwise it isn?t fair as nobody should be protected by process or above the law.

The investigatory bodies that are in force now do not appear to have the power, funding or in some cases jurisdiction to address these types of allegations and complaints and so there is nobody keeping them you know whats honest.

Things need to change.

Posted by: Jolanda Challita on June 15, 2006 10:56 AM

I just have a question for those of you who are in the know. I received some documents that my family had requested under FOI and that we had to take to the ADT to force the Department in question to provide. We were awarded the documents.

They have produced the document and this document supports our claims and allegations but on the bottom it says

"This document is not to be published in any form without the permission of the NSW Department of Education & Training (c) 2002 NSW Department of Education & Training"

Can they sue me if I publish it. It is a document that is Public property as I was given access under the FOI Act and by the ADT?

Anybody know?

Posted by: Jolanda Challita on June 16, 2006 12:06 PM

In fact, every person should get a copy of every piece of legal paperwork that relates to them. We purchased a copy of the folio on our land because QLD officials are allegedly destroying any documents relating to legal ownership and the Crown in order to remve the paper trail of legitimate ownership. Our local council recently ruled to remove the right to build second houses on farm land, farmers asked to see what the original right on their titles was, and - low and behold - council did not have any of that info any more!

When governments hide important things from us, they are not governing us, they are dictating to us.

Posted by: country girl on July 5, 2006 11:47 AM

FOI will only happen in Australia if pigs can fly or all the politicans,judges,lawyers, and legislators disappeared below ground.Then there is a good chance of FOI.Australian do everything slow but 9 years it is a joke.All along it was government intention to numb its citizens so that the politicans could make something great of themselves.Not all Australian are numb and that is why they are writing to your column.I think just by posting our comments proof that most of the readers have a sharp detective mind. We have to use a different tactic to confront these bastards. By giving them an ultimatum if they dont release FOI then we are exempt from tax.